OBJECTIVE: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship.
METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

UNASSIGNED: Nowadays, many studies discuss scholarly publishing and associated challenges, but the problem of hijacked journals has been neglected. Hijacked journals are cloned websites that mimic original journals but are managed by cybercriminals. The present study uses a topic modeling approach to analyze published papers in hijacked versions of medical journals.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 3384 papers were downloaded from 21 hijacked journals in the medical domain and analyzed by topic modeling algorithm.
UNASSIGNED: Results indicate that hijacked versions of medical journals are published in most fields of the medical domain and typically respect the primary domain of the original journal.
UNASSIGNED: The academic world is faced with the third-generation of hijacked journals, and their detection may be more complex than common ones. The usage of artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool to deal with the phenomenon.

This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall\'s list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall\'s themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.

暂无摘要。

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.
Las revistas depredadoras se diferencian de las revistas legítimas por su falta de adecuadas revisiones y procesos editoriales, lo que compromete la calidad del contenido publicado. Estas revistas no llevan a cabo revisiones por pares ni realizan acciones que detecten y prevengan el plagio y aceptan manuscritos sin exigir modificaciones sustanciales. Su tasa de aceptación cercana al 100% se debe a su enfoque lucrativo, sin importarles el contenido que publican. Aunque presumen tener un comité editorial compuesto por investigadores destacados, en la mayoría de los casos es una simulación destinada a impresionar y atraer a los investigadores. Además, estas revistas carecen de prácticas éticas adecuadas y no son transparentes en sus procesos editoriales. Las revistas depredadoras han afectado a múltiples disciplinas, incluida la Ortopedia y Traumatología y su presencia es aún desconocida para muchos investigadores, lo que los convierte en víctimas sin saberlo. Su estrategia consiste en solicitar artículos por correo electrónico a autores que han publicado en revistas legítimas, prometiendo una publicación rápida, sencilla y económica. Las implicaciones y consecuencias negativas de las revistas depredadoras en la comunidad científica y los investigadores son numerosas. El propósito de este trabajo es proporcionar información general sobre estas revistas y específicamente en el campo de la Ortopedia y Traumatología, brindando pautas para identificarlas y evitarlas, para que los autores puedan tomar decisiones informadas al publicar sus manuscritos y evitar caer en manos de revistas o editoriales depredadoras.

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the \"open-access model\" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers\' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals.
METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University.
RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term \"predatory journal.\" As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals.
CONCLUSIONS: Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors\' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

UNASSIGNED: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality.
UNASSIGNED: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed.
UNASSIGNED: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals.
UNASSIGNED: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

UNASSIGNED: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.
UNASSIGNED: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term \"predatory journals,\" and 74% unaware of Beall\'s list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.
UNASSIGNED: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

UNASSIGNED: The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess levels of knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.
UNASSIGNED: The current study employed successive methods framework including (1) item generation through a literature review and theoretical framework development, (2) validity testing in terms of face, content, and construct validity for perceptions construct as well as item analysis for knowledge scale, and (3) reliability testing in terms of Cronbach\'s alpha, Kuder-Richardson (KR-20), item-to-total correlations, corrected item-to-total correlations, Cronbach\'s alpha if item deleted, and test-retest reliability. A total of 304 participants were recruited from King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to evaluate its construct validity and reliability. This was established using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring (PFA) and varimax rotation as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for perception construct.
UNASSIGNED: An instrument was developed from this study called the \"Predatory Journals KP Assessment Questionnaire\". The results of EFA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the perception construct. Item analysis confirmed the construct validity of the knowledge scale. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were achieved for the knowledge scale items, consisting of 13 items. The results of EFA confirmed the measured constructs of perceptions toward predatory journals. The results of EFA and CFA for perception construct resulted in only one factor with 9 items.
UNASSIGNED: This study has successfully developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals among researchers in the clinical and health disciplines. This instrument serves as a valuable guide for future studies that aim to assess researcher\'s knowledge and perceptions about predatory journals and examine the differences in these measured constructs according to their demographic and professional characteristics.